Re: And good does not always triumph.
Er, we're talking about policing powers, not governmental powers. There's not many countries where police are political employees, not even the USA really, where the head of the FBI is politically appointed (the rank and file are not), and maybe the local sheriff is elected. Those countries where the police are an arm of the political powerbase and do what the politicians command tend to be autocratic dictatorships. Those countries where there really is rule of law - i.e. politicians get arrested too and go to jail under the terms of the laws they themselves are currators of - tend to be functioning democracies.
There is no such thing as "political power" in a democracy. All the politicians do is pass laws, and decide how public funds are spent. That may result in a perception of "holding power", but it's only an in-bulk, money incentivised thing; they have to pay people to do the things they want done. Money is persuassive, but not all-powerful. Politicians simply have access to an awful lot of it. So do billionaires, and whilst a billionaire can also be extremely persuasive, they can't actually make anyone do something either. They, like politicians, cannot actually force any specific person do a specific thing, and in that sense they have no power. Only someone with a warrant (e.g. a policeman with a good reason) can intefere with what someone wants to do (by arresting them), and only a Judge can actually issue an order to make someone do something, or dish out consequences for failing to follow it, and only then after due process. That's why it's called the "rule of law"; it's the Judges on behalf of the law itself who have the power, not the people who write them.
And you misunderstand "consent". For example, littering. In most countries, littering is illegal. If you see someone doing it, you've witnessed a crime. Yet if you don't report that to the police, you are witholding consent for that crime to be policed; you have taken a decision to let that criminal evade justice, and you are choosing to be party to it. By that measure, almost no one consents to littering being policed, yet we all suffer the consequences of it (we have to pay for street sweepers to clear up the mess).
Ok, so littering is a "trivial" example (except that, at scale, it's highly polluting). How about speeding? How about seeing someone being racially abused at a football match? How about a mate in a club who is pestering a girl and she clearly doesn't want it? How about someone down the pub boasting about their crafty social support con, or their tax fiddle? If one is not prepared to phone up the police and give them the registration plate, or the names of the abusers, or the name of the sex pest, or the name of the social security or tax fraudster, are those then crimes that one is essentially quite happy with going on?
The police cannot police unless those who see crimes actually do report them, and are prepared to be witnesses for the prosecution.
There's a lot of folk not doing that. There's also folk (well, tech companies) making tools (such as E2EE) to make it easy to hide the existence of crime in the first place. That contrasts nicely with politicians being under pressure to "bring down crime figures". So, the inevitable result is that police are given more means to be able to spot crime for themselves. Hence, CCTV, large scale tools, AI facial recognition, etc. We're not about to pay for every sweet wrapper to be closely watched by a policeman, lest someone drops it...